gives directions. but can siri keep a secret? it turns out girlfriend might be behind your back. this is "the cycle." federal investigators are tipping to make their case against accused boston marathon bomber, 19-year-old dzhokhar tsarnaev. a federal judge has deemed him alert, mentally compensate and lucid despite still being hospitalized. from his hospital bed he told interrogators, he and his brother were not in contact with overseas terrorists. that they conceived the attack on their own following online bomb instructions and were motivated by a radical version of islam. and their anger over the u.s.-led wars in iraq and afghanistan. officials say his older brother tamerlan spent time on jihadist websites reading extremist propaganda including inspire

magazine, which is aimed at aspiring lone wolf terrorists. the last fatal victim, m.i.t. officer sean collier was laid to rest today in massachusetts. his casket watched over by a police honor guard. the mourners were led by collier's parents and five siblings. vice president joe biden will attend a public memorial tomorrow. 8-year-old martin richard was also laid to rest this morning in a private funeral. a public memorial is also being planned. as for the survivors, amazingly, only one victim is still in critical condition. 45 remain hospitalized. of the total 264 injured, boston public health commission says the number of injured has increased because some victims delayed getting medical attention and are just now seeing a doctor. boston's recovery continues as the six-block area around the marathon finish line is now reopened to businesses and residents for the first time since the attack. nbc news national investigative correspondent mike isikoff remains in boston for us.

michael, what more have we learn about this lone wolf claim? >> reporter: well, this is looking more and more to bureau officials like a case of self-radicalization. as we've reported, dzhokhar tsarnaev said he and his brother acted alone. they were motivated by a desire to defend islam. and as a result of u.s. wars in iraq and afghanistan, that they learned to make the bomb from online versions of inspire magazine, put out by al qaeda in yemen. perhaps most significantly, at the moment, a preliminary review of the computer and cell phones that they used have shown no indicators of outside accomplices. this is preliminary. there is a lot more to go through. but the initial review of the cell phones and e-mails do not seem to indicate that there was

anybody else who was an accomplice in the plot. now, as i said, it is preliminary. the bureau official are investigating of we also learned today that the fbi has been talking to members of that cambridge mosque where tamerlan tsarnaev had been a frequent attendee. had engaged in some disruptions that caused some issues at the mosque. at one point, we were told he was actually told to either stop disrupting services, or stop attending services. and now the bureau has been in touch with people at the mosque. they've been questioning people who were present for those and they are continuing to look for indicators have anybody else who might have been ideologically like-minded or who might have encouraged them. so far they haven't found any accomplices, anybody, or even suspected accomplices in the actual plot. >> michael isikoff, thanks again. today on the hill the fbi

will brief senate intelligence committee members about their 2011 investigation of the older bombing suspect. ultimately clearing him of terrorist links. some lawmakers are criticizing how the government handled that 2011 russian tip. it is just one of many examples of how washington reacts in the weeks after a tragedy. the patriot act was signed just six weeks after 9/11. michael hersh is chief correspondent for the national journal. in the days following boston, our mayor, michael bloomberg and his customary modesty, came out to say that we should perhaps think about changing the constitution in order to stave off future attacks like this. i would like to contrast that with a well known famous saying among lawyers that hard cases make bad law. in a case like this, with such extraordinary circumstances, around such an aberrant event,

the best opportunities to pass meaningful legislation are not in the wake of these sort of crazy one off extraordinary events. what do you make of that? >> well, it is a real conundrum. on the one hand, holmes was right. you don't want extraordinary circumstances to create general law for average circumstances. but in another sense, this was not extraordinary. in fact, we've been living in something of a bubble. the fbi has done actually a fairly amazing job over the last decade of stopping many terrorist acts like when they occurred in other countries and europe and the middle east. and this was one that got through. but there are ways in which you could actually change laws to further enable the fbi. going back to michael isikoff's report. what if members of this mosque in boston had contacted law enforcement authorities under a new program and warned them that this fellow tsarnaev was looking

a little erratic and unstable. >> what is stopping them -- what would be stopping them from doing that now, michael? >> well, there are questions of civil liberties. one of the things, you talk to fbi and even many people in the muslim community about is can the united states emulate a very aggressive program being done in britain called the prevent program. you have a lot of outreach from law enforcement, even the national health authorities. they set up liaisons with these communities. that raises questions of ethnic profiling. it has been very effective since the terrible attack in 2005, the transit bombings that killed more than 50 people that i think bloomberg is on to something. does it have to be constitutional change? how dramatic should it be? that should be debated. you have to say if you're not calling for changes at times of crisis, when is it going to happen?

it is usually a crisis that precipitates change. >> religious profiling is not the answer. turning the corner, there seems to be some rumbling, especially among republicans that this should change the immigration conversation, even rand paul said we should delay the immigration debate until more details emerge. i don't know if he wants one of those machines that can bore into the hearts of 9-year-olds. but do you think this will and should change the immigration conversation? >> i think it has changed it to a degree. i don't think it will change the course and the dynamics behind the gang of 8 immigration bill. that was just last week. i think that's the beginning of the process. it is somewhat surprisingly, you hear even house speaker john boehner and paul ryan, two major voices in the house. the immigration bill is expected to have a tougher time come out and say in fact, the boston killings show that we do need immigration reform.

we need a better sense of who is here out among us. so i think there is a debate back and forth. ran paul was one of those that came out for delaying the immigration bill. i think it is going to change the discussion. i don't see it really stymieing this bill. >> i want to draw you out on the philosophy here. one of the things we see is a much stronger response from policy makers to deaths that were caused by what we perceive to be evil. by murderers or terrorists. than the same or a greater number of deaths by accident or by acts of nature. and obviously, the contrast to the terrible explosion in west texas as well. why is that? >> well, i think in the case of terror, this does fit a lineage that goes back to at least 9/11 that has created a lot of fear

in this society. as i said before, we've been in something of a state of complacency about it. it is not surprising that you would hear lawmakers talk about new ways of adopting measures that will further preserve the u.s. and let's face it. a lot of these laws we're dealing with come out of crisis situations. people forget. one of the reasons the fbi's hands were tied in terms of having to drop the tamerlan tsarnaev case in 2011 was that the commission dating back to the watergate era had adopted new guidelines which tied the fbi's hands. i don't know whether that answers your question. but i think it is much more likely that you will get legislation coming out of a crisis situation. >> and michael, to that point, you wrote a really interesting piece post new toup. basically saying, who would have thought that gun control would be such a central part of the debate in president obama's

second term? picking up on that, how much of what actually gets done is just sort of the circumstances that occur, the events and crises that draw our attention and how much is presidential skill or the political set of facts in terms of who controls the senate and congress. what is really driving our policy? >> it has been a combination of all those things. that's what's interesting. if you look at smart presidents like lyndon baines johnson became masterful manipulators of the political process to pass legislation including civil rights law that anyone thought was possible. and i think no one would have thought it was even possible to discuss gun control legislation and immigration at the same time at the beginning of barack obama's first term. and yet circumstances changed. in the immigration law, what is driving all this is clearly the

poll numbers. that's all that is behind this whole gang of 8 legislative effort. so i think a new sort of deal of the cards, if you will. a new seventh circumstances dramatically can change the calculus in these issues. gun control, many people thought that would be possible but the nra came roaring back and held up all of these amendments last week. so it is a difficult thing to read. i think what presidents and congresses have to learn, you can't count anything out entirely. a completely new circumstance like the boston marathon bombing can crop up and suddenly put a brand new issue on the agenda in a way that no one could have imagined 24 hours before. >> all the more reason to wait until cooler heads can prevail. thank you, michael hirsch. the airports are worse than ever. hey! did you know that honey nut cheerios

has oats that can help lower cholesterol? and it tastes good? sure does! wow. it's the honey, it makes it taste so... well, would you look at the time... what's the rush? be happy. be healthy. ♪ the middle of this special moment and i need to run off to the bathroom. ♪ i'm fed up with always having to put my bladder's needs ahead of my daughter. ♪ so today, i'm finally talking to my doctor about overactive bladder symptoms. [ female announcer ] know that gotta go feeling? ask your doctor about prescription toviaz. one toviaz pill a day significantly reduces sudden urges and accidents, for 24 hours. if you have certain stomach problems or glaucoma, or can not empty your bladder, you should not take toviaz.

get emergency medical help right away if your face, lips, throat or tongue swells. toviaz can cause blurred vision, dizziness, drowsiness and decreased sweating. do not drive, operate machinery or do unsafe tasks until you know how toviaz affects you. the most common side effects are dry mouth and constipation. talk to your doctor about toviaz. that's not much, you think. except it's 2% every year. go to e-trade and find out how much our advice and guidance costs. spoiler alert: it's low. it's guidance on your terms, not ours. e-trade. less for us. more for you.

grounded. this week, flyers are feeling the result of the sequester cuts. furloughed air traffic controllers are causing delays nationwide. >> in certain places, i believe cut backs should not be happening. >> i think it is horrible. there are enough problems dealing with delays and security and weather and other things when you're flying. i think they should furlough the president and congress.

>> the faa blames the combination of staffing shortages and the weather for massive delays at major hubs. the agency claim it had no choice but to put 15,000 work order unpaid furloughs through october which means 10% fewer working each day. we know passengers are frustrated, of course, but so are those air traffic controllers who worry they're being used as political pawns of. >> the air traffic controllers have never been furloughed. they should not be furloughed now. >> the white house says the furloughs were unavoidable under the cuts originally supported by republicans and republicans simply say this. blame obama for delaying your flight. let's get a first class perspective on all of this from the "huffington post," howard fineman. did you see what i did there? >> i wish i could fly first. we don't. >> so howard, you know there is a difference between the reality

of the situation and the perception of the reality of the situation. do you think that most people who are inconvenienced by this, waiting in longer security lines, do you think they're standing there with their luggage thinking this is because of the sequester? if they are playinging that connection, who do you think they're blaming for those delays? >> well, they might not use the word sequester but they definitely blame washington and they probably blame both the president and the congress with weighted emphasis depending on their politics. the fact is i took some time this morning to read through the law. read through what the office of management and budgets that. read what the congressional research said. and this is a, just a direct consequence of what the law itself says. what the sequester law that was enacted in 1985 and was wielded in 2011 in the fiscal deal requires. every department. every agency. every program. every spending program within every agency and every program

has to be cut by the same amount. that's what the law says. that's what's happening with the faa, with the tsa, with every other alphabet soup agency in government. >> so howard, how badly are people feeling these cuts? there was an atlantic headline yesterday that caught my eye. it said, airports holding up under the crushing weight sequestration. my friend was on a plane yesterday and he said the pilot got on the radio and told the passengers, if the service was bad, blame republicans for the furloughs. now, republicans are blaming obama. there was a hash tag they were trying to get trending, obama flight delays yesterday. i don't know if that worked. >> catchy. >> what effect is all of this, this blame game stuff. what is that going to have on budget politics? >> i think the easy answer, but i think the correct one is that

it is a pox on both the houses and the presidency. the fact is people don't distinguish that much for the most part if they're fair-minded. it is true the president suggested using the sequester tool as part of the negotiations. if you want to blame him, you can. but yes, it is true that the republicans refused to go along with even one more dime of revenue increases to try to make the fiscal cliff deal happen without having to resort to this. so there's blame to go all around. i think the overall political effect is to sour people even further on washington. to inculcate the notion that washington is the place where change goes to die. where results never happen. where deals are never cut. and i think ultimately, both the republican leadership and the president suffer as a result. >> what i think is that this displays so much of what's wrong with the press and the political priorities in washington. we heard all about white house

tours. now we're hearing all about flying. there have been some exceptions including samstein and the "huffington post" who has reported on what the big part of sequester does. the big parts to most people, public housing to the chip program. a lot of real problems for people living at the margins of this recession. instead we get all this talk that is for people who are more well off. the majority of american adults will not get on a plane this year. 138 million americans won't get on a plane. flying. and white house tours, this is class stuff. this is great if you're middle or upper class. why do you think as a guy, you're old media, new media, you've been around this discussion in washington. why does so much of our media discussion focus on what are essentially the problems for the people who are the most well off? >> well, i suppose i can turn it around and ask why you led the segment the way you did? what is the answer? the fact is if you're reading the "huffington post," you're

reading what sam writes, what i write, you read what others write. i wrote a big piece about how this affects medical research at the most elemental and urgent level in terms of the translating the human jean dloem project for actual help for patients. that's happening right now. it is like not building the last middle miles of the trans continental railroad. the basic research was funneleded by the federal government. yet now the government because of sequester is cutting back on translating that research into cures for cancer patients. so i think you ask a very good question. my answer would be, read the "huffington post." >> that's always a good -- >> we're part of problem. >> i have two questions. i want to you choose one. the question i originally thought of, if you're obama are you at the landscape and saying this whole thing was a bad idea. my other question is, i learned doing some research, that you just passed your 29th wedding anniversary. there is your lovely wife.

which is an extraordinary achievement. how does one get to 29 years of marriage! >> okay, let me take the second question first. love and understanding is the simple answer. and the longer you're married, the more you appreciate the person you're lucky enough to be married to. so that's the first thing. and what was the first question? oh, yes. does obama regret this situation? well, i think probably he does. because don't forget, they threw this out there, this sequester drakonnian idea as a way to try to force some kind of deal. force republicans to come to the table. force democrats to give up on entitlements. none of that happened. now he is stuck with it. and don't forget during the 2012 campaign, he said don't worry. this is never going to happen. so he didn't want it to happen. now i think what the democrats and the white house are doing,

trying to make the best in terms of politics, frankly. sending out press releases every day about the horrific effects of this out of what is a very bad situation in terms of government. it is just a criminally irresponsible of government spending to be cut in this way. it really is. i think the president cares about that and i think he regrets it. >> howard fineman, congratulations. >> thanks a lot, krystal. >> in about 30 minutes, a long-awaited congressional hearing gets underway to investigate america's drone program. we'll get into that next. we've all had those moments.

when you lost the thing you can't believe you lost. when what you just bought, just broke. or when you have a little trouble a long way from home... as an american express cardmember you can expect some help. but what you might not expect, is you can get all this with a prepaid card. spends like cash. feels like membership. everybody has different ideas, goals, appetite for risk. you can't say 'one size fits all'. it doesn't. that's crazy. we're all totally different. ishares core. etf building blocks for your personalized portfolio. find out why 9 out of 10 large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock.

call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus, which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing. risk includes possible loss of principal. what that's great. it won't take long, will it? nah. okay. this, won't take long will it? no, not at all. how many of these can we do on our budget? more than you think. didn't take very long, did it? this spring, dig in and save. that's nice. post it. already did. more saving. more doing. that's the power of the home depot. dig in and save with vigoro one-quart annuals,

developing news, drones are back in the news today. in a pretty big way. a senate subcommittee is about to hold the first hearing on the legal and security implications of targeted killing through drones. the oversight come after some

pretty major breakthroughs in an attempt to oversee the drone program. last month the federal appeals court roolds against the obama administration's argument that it was a state secret. the court ordered the cia to respond to freedom of information requests about targeted killing. a few days later, three obama officials told the daily beast that the drone program will move from the cia to the defense department. that could increase accountability and transparency. the president also responded by saying this at the state of the union. >> i will continue to engage congress to ensure not only that our targeting, detention and prosecution of terrorists remains consistent with our laws and system of checks and balances. but that our efforts are even more transparent to the american people and to the world. >> but it looks like that effort is not getting very far. the administration refused to even send a witness to testify and answer questions at today's hearings. the chair of the hearing told us the legal and policy questions

surrounded targeted killings require a public debate. once again, it looks like a debate the white house would rather skip. joining us now to discuss the government's obligation to defend the nation and the constitution is dan clydeman who has been all over the story and wrote a definitive account of the evolving detention policies. kill or capture, the war on terr terror. and chief foreign corporate, richard engel. thank you both for being here. dan, starting with you, when we see the administration decide not to send a witness, why do you think they made that decision? and should they send one? >> well, to take your second question first as a reporter, absolutely. obviously, i'm in favor of transparency. i think this oversight hearing is long overdue. it would be an important thing for the administration to send a witness. why they haven't done it is a

more complicated question. i think to some extent the administration has gotten out ahead of itself as we saw in the clip where president obama talked about wanting to do this. now they are trying to do it as they go down this path. they're realizing for both institutional, bureaucratic, political and legal reasons, and to some extent, national security reasons, coming out and publicly about a covert program is hard. it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done but it has to be done carefully and i think that there is a lot of has not wringing about how to do this. it is why we haven't actually seen them come forward yet. >> one of the questions that has been raised before by senator wideman among others is whether the administration has an obligation to release the countries where it is using these drones for targeted killing. why do you think from your reporting the administration doesn't want to do that? >> well, going back to the point that was just made. the cia doesn't like to talk about its operations. it is a clandestine organization

that works in the shadows. and the larger issue is, does the cia want to get out of the drone business? and does it want to let the defense department get into the drone business, if you will? it goes back to 9/11. after 9/11, the united states was attacked and needed a response. and we saw the cia becoming less of an intelligence agency and more of a paramilitary agency involving drones, involving missions to go out and find people and kill people. that has functioned for about the last ten years. will we see now a shift? going back to the cia, taking its traditional role of gathering intelligence, working with foreign intelligence agencies and shifting the lethal operations back to the military which is much more comfortable about talking about these things, where there are already established lines of oversight. >> pick up on that point a

little bit. as you know, we have a new director of the cia, john brennan who in the past has advocated for that move from the cia to the d.o.d. do you think he still sees that as a valuable move now that he is the one in charge of the cia? >> well, it is an interesting question. he was in some ways the driving force behind this idea. i suspect this was something that president obama was comfortable with. wanted to do. but internally, within the intelligence community and in the white house, this was john brennan's baby moving the drone program to the military from the cia. now he has a different set of responsibilities and the question that you raise is a good one. does he have different institutional loyalties now that he is head of the cia. this was a program that is quite popular among the rank and file

inside the agency. it is sort of a paradox that the drone program has in some ways given the cia its highest profile in the war on terror, although it is a program that they maintain covert and don't want to talk about. so the question is, do they want to give up their toys. and you know, at the higher levels, my understanding is that the agency has signed off on this. most of the administration has signed off on this. the president has as well. so the question is, how do they do it? i do think that this is something that john brennan still wants to do. it is complicated and the devil is in the details. one question, for example, is should they shift the perhaps to the military, does that mean that almost by definition, they have to bring the program out from the shadows because the military does not operate covertly, sometimes

clandestinely but not covertly. if that is the case, then the secret war in pakistan is over. we can no longer maintain that fiction, or the pakistanis can't maintain that fiction that we aren't operating in pakistan, a sovereign country. that will have real diplomatic fallout, political fallout, and that is the kind of thing that people are worried about inside the administration. >> dan, let's move up the chain and talk about the president's part in all this. he owns this drone program. in your book which is excellent. you talk repeatedly about the fear that he feels about having one successful terrorist attack in this country. i think people are very upset because the president campaigned as a utopian. he campaigned in terms of transparency and now we get the opposite. i think once he starts to get the daily briefings, to see the responsibility that would fall on his shoulders if he were to be the one who allowed another

terrorist attack to happen. that's unthinkable for him. >> well, look, you're right. there is always kind of a disjuncture between campaigning and governing. that's true in the area of national security where a president is all of a sudden, assumes these responsibilities. two points. one thing is that while obama did talk about restoring constitutional values to the war on terror, shutting down guantanamo, doing all these other high minded thing, one thing he did that do is talk about the drone program. he did not say he was against it. i think in some fundamental ways, he believed that the drone program was in line with his basic m.o. toward national security and foreign policy which is to say to lighten the american footprint in the reasoning, but to deal with these threats of so that's one point. the other thing is, i don't think that barack obama considers the drones a panacea

in the war on terror. and one of his top national security advisers said to me, he sees it as an important tactical weapon that has strategic implications. but mostly, he sees it as an opportunity to try to prevent the next attack in the united states. so he was pretty hard nosed about that. so that's where he is. >> richard, you know, i can make moral and legal arguments for codifying our drone program. the rules of engagement and i have in the past. there is also a very practical argument for getting this down on paper. and increasing the transparency on it. when, not if, when bad actors get their hands on the same technology that we have, and use it in terrible ways, we really lose our ability to lean on our allies and world bodies and ask them to sanction or punish these bad actors for an unaccountable drone program when the mantra of

our drone program is what drone program, right? >> if you have a program that is operating in the shadows, eventually you're going to have problems with it. right now, we use drones primarily as we've been about by the cia to kill al qaeda members. and i use that term loosely. sometimes these are al qaeda affiliates, people inspired by the same goals as al qaeda. well, other countries eventually will have armed drones and they can be using them against human rights activists. and we won't have a lot of moral ground to stand on. if we've been operating in the shadows. it goes back to 9/11. 9/11 happened. it was a horrible incident and the united states wasn't exactly prepared to deal with it. the military had plans for conventional war. didn't have plans for defeating a stateless organization that was more or less based in parts of afghanistan, allied with a

group like the taliban. the cia took the lead. in these, in this war, drones became an enormous force. and the cia has continued with the drone program. there are people who are very uncomfortable with this, within the cia. it has caused problem for general intelligence gathering with other countries because now the cia is not just an intelligence agency. it is also a paramilitary agency. and there are plenty of people who would like the cia to give up this business, get it back into the hands of the military, and see drones for what they are. another weapon of war being used by a military. at the end of the day, it is a weapon. drones aren't going away. it is who uses them and who gets oversight over them. i think for the last decade, since its been in the cia's hands, there has been a lot of problems of accountability. because when you call people to testify, generally the cia doesn't like to come out in public and talk about its

operations. >> right. and they're not doing that today. we'll keep an eye on it at the committee hearing at four:00 p.m. thank you both. >> thank you. up next, all the stories we would have been talking about if not for the boston attacks. [ phil ] when you have joint pain and stiffness... accomplishing even little things can become major victories. i'm phil mickelson, pro golfer. when i was diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis, my rheumatologist prescribed enbrel

for my pain and stiffness, and to help stop joint damage. [ male announcer ] enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious, sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma, other cancers, nervous system and blood disorders, and allergic reactions have occurred. before starting enbrel, your doctor should test you for tuberculosis and discuss whether you've been to a region where certain fungal infections are common. you should not start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. tell your doctor if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure, or if you have symptoms such as persistent fever, bruising, bleeding, or paleness. since enbrel helped relieve my joint pain, it's the little things that mean the most. ask your rheumatologist if enbrel is right for you. [ doctor ] enbrel, the number one biologic medicine prescribed by rheumatologists.

[ doctor ] enbrel, the number one biologic medicine [ female announcer ] some people like to pretend a flood could never happen to them. and that their homeowners insurance protects them. [ thunder crashes ] it doesn't. stop pretending. only flood insurance covers floods. ♪ visit floodsmart.gov/pretend to learn your risk.

it's eb. want to give your family the very best in taste, freshness, and nutrition? it's eb. eggland's best. better taste. better nutrition. better eggs. now obviously for more than a week we've covered the boston marathon bombings, almost wall to wall on this network. we realize there has been a lot of other stuff going on. apparently our viewers know, too. at dusty kennedy, one of our followers tweeted, i know the boston bombings was, were terrible, but there is other news in the world. and included a slew of hash tags for emphasis.

while we don't agree with the aggressive tone, had the bombings be happened, he would have been clock full of news. it was the week that wasn't. it turns out it was pretty interesting itself. let's back spin. the story that we didn't get to talk to last week that i thought was pretty interesting was there boy scouts of america announcement that they were no longer going to deny membership to their young members based on their sexual preference. they're still maintaining a ban on openly gay adult troop leaders. and this is something they'll vote on in may in dallas. but got to say. i think this is an interesting move for one reason. because the supreme court really settled this in 2000 with their case saying that the boy scouts of america were free to discriminate against whomever they wanted. that was well within their first amendment rights of freedom of association. i agree with that even though i disagree with the boy scouts

that homosexuality is immoral. this didn't come as legal pressure. this came as a result of our conversation on the issue. they are deciding we don't want to be, quote, out in the woods on this issue. out in the wilderness, so to speak. >> one more. one more. >> i can go all day. >> how many? >> tied up in knots over this. >> now you're going too far. >> they wanted to adjust with the conversation. >> i agree with s.e. cupp. i think people forget that freedom of association is an important right. >> it is. private organization. >> obviously i wouldn't make that call if i were in charge. another supreme court thing that we totally lost in the news -- >> what? you got something? >> private organizations, we're okay with discrimination because a private organization? >> first amendment, man. >> did you just stop yourself from talking? i've never seen that before. i've never seen that. do you want to keep debating

this? we're not doing that? what else happened? what i was going to say, thank you, krystal ball. what i was going to say another interesting case was that the supreme court ruled really across a different kind of coalition that this week you cannot have the blood test or search through a blood test by police of someone accused of drunk driving without a warrant. before this, you could. or it was at least debated. it was a huge, interesting breakthrough. at the same time we're hearing people like mayor bloomberg talk about how we need more government powers and a big part of it that was striking that did not get enough attention. you had justice scalia a. the fail back ground checks, i'm very upset with heidi heitkamp. she could have stood up and said

i am for this. she said she wanted to be the 60th vote. max baucus could have supported this and he did not. and if you're against discrimination, you can't say it is a private organization so they can do whatever they want. >> you can do away with the first amendment. that's a good idea. >> in other news from last week mark sanford, disgraced trail on the appalachian trail guy, is going to lose. >> already determined that in. >> in a special election two weeks from now his wife is suing him because he allegedly trespassed at her home. >> so close! >> he really needed to run a perfect campaign. he is now down by nine points in a contradict that mitt romney won by 18 points. >> he made no mistakes. >> jenny sanford didn't want to see him in congress. >> meet the man tasked with overseeing the newly marijuana industry. zap technology.

arrival. with hertz gold plus rewards, you skip the counters, the lines, and the paperwork. zap. it's our fastest and easiest way to get you into your car. it's just another way you'll be traveling at the speed of hertz.

[ agent smith ] i've found software that intrigues me. it appears it's an agent of good. ge has wired their medical hardware with innovative software to be in many places at the same time. using data to connect patients to software, to nurses to the right people and machines. ♪ helping hospitals treat people even better, while dramatically reducing waiting time. now a waiting room is just a room. [ telephone ringing ] [ static warbles ] [ beeping ] red or blue? ♪

the math of retirement is different today.ek. money has to last longer. i don't want to pour over pie charts all day. i want to travel, and i want the income to do it. ishares incomes etfs. low cost and diversified. find out why nine out of ten large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus, which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing. risk includes possible loss of principal. mr. wiggles and curling irons. for the little mishaps you feel, use neosporin to help you heal. it kills germs so you heal four days faster neosporin. also try neosporin eczema essentials. as well as they could because they don't take it with food. switch to citracal maximum plus d. it's the only calcium supplement that can be taken with or without food. my doctor recommends citracal maximum. it's all about absorption. my doctor recommends citracal maximum.

hoo-hoo...hoo-hoo. hoo-hoo hoo. sir... i'll get it together i promise... heeheehee. jimmy: ronny, how happy are folks who save hundreds of dollars switching to geico? ronny:i'd say happier than the pillsbury doughboy on his way to a baking convention. get happy. get geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more. marijuana is so easy to by in america, it seems to be de facto legal. don't fell to the 600,000 people arrested each year for marijuana-related offenses. if we tax currently illegal drugs, we could bring in more than $46 billion. two states, colorado and washington, are trying to end the war on drugs by doing what

was said long ago. legalize it. warrick wants to allow it to sold and taxed in a way that monitors how alcohol is sold and taxed. it is a little more complicated than that because of a little thing call the federal government. and he is tasked with ill plemting the new law, new law a professor of public policy at ucla and author of "marijuana cost of abuse, cost of control." welcome, mark. you're advising washington state on how to implement their new law. what are you doing? what are you advising? such that the law is implemented and people behave in a way that is responsible? and is not about we want more people to get high but we don't want people who are committing nonviolent offenses to be crimin criminalized? >> right. we don't want hundreds of millions of dollars in washington state going to revenues. i'm not sure what did the report you just quoted, but anybody who thought there was $46 billion in available in revenues has been

smoking something. that's not going to happen. there is some revenue available. but the point you made is the right point. how do you have cannabis available to adults for responsible use? without increasing the number of people, at"a" who get in troubl with it and "b" the access to kids? and it's not an easy problem. and my group is going to basically try and figure out what the facts are and let the liquor board make the decisions. >> well, one of the important things here is states are sort of the laboratories of democracy. so how critical is it that washington state gets this right? so that other states can follow suit in a responsible way? >> it would be wonderful to get it right. it's going to be very hard to get it right the first time partly because it's a moving target. but as was pointed out, what's being tried in washington, in colorado, is very interesting. and i hope we get it right. but it's not really a full model

of what national legalization would look like because they're making something legal under state law that's still a felony under federal law. or to the industry that arises in washington state is going to look much like the industry that would arise if we made the drug legal nationally. >> so what -- be sort of specific on a concrete level. what is this going to look like? where is marijuana going to be purchased? are there going to be different brands marketing their superior products? what is the consumer experience going to be like in washington state? >> excellent questions. the law in washington state sets up a system that's like the alcohol system, but it's a separate system. so you'll only be able to buy marijuana in marijuana stores. they will have to get it from licensed distributors who will have to get it from licensed growers. what the experience at the store level is like is going to be an interesting question. they can offer a variety of things but only marijuana. they can't sell food, for example. they will be allowed to sell

edibles. so you're going to be able to buy pot brownies in washington. and what they look like depends on the board's regulatory decisions. and also, one, what the market turns out to support. in washington, you can't sell for on premises consumption. there aren't going to be coffee shops like amsterdam. buy it, take it home. >> i'm happy to see krystal interested on this issue. up next, news that will make you rethink your relationship. tired, achy feet draining your energy?

we've got your number. i stepped on the machine, and it showed me the pressure points on my feet and exactly where i needed more support. then, i got my number. i tried the free dr.scholl's foot mapping center. in two minutes, i got my foot map and custom number. just step on, and over 2000 sensors measure your foot length, arch type and pressure points to create your own personal foot map. go to drscholls.com/footmap or text feet to 467467 to find a foot mapping center near you.

my number is 330, and i found my dr.scholl's custom fit orthotic inserts right there on the machine. they had just the cushioning and support i need. each insert is designed with three layers to add custom comfort, cushion your pressure points and support your arches. and there's a money-back guarantee. i am a believer. i'm a believer! i'm a believer. find a free foot mapping center near you now. go to drscholls.com/footmap or text feet to 467467 and learn how to save $10 on your orthotics. because life starts with your feet.

can you bring me a glass of water? >> here you go, senior. >> ha, ha, mitt romney's out of touch. putting aside the media and late night comedians' obsession with his awkwardness, the bit was funny for another reason. siri, the iphone act that allows users to ask it questions and get a useful, hilarious response, just how deep is siri's knowledge base? one website, borderlinefun.com posed the question, where can i hide a body? siri unflinchingly responded, what kind of place are you looking for, reservoirs, metal foundries, dumps, swamps? creepy, yes. funny, sure. also somewhat alarming given recent news. according to reporting by wired, those questions and commands you share with siri can be stored on apple servers for up to two years. not a problem if you just want to know where the nearest pharmacy is. but what if you want to know where the nearest bar is?

or sex club? or you ask it jokingly or in earnest how to cheat on your taxes or your wife? apple insists it can't share that information with anyone, but that hasn't stopped the aclu from expressing serious concerns over its privacy practices. but besides the obvious and now all too familiar caveat that nothing is truly private anymore, there's a reason for skepticism about apple's insistence they'll guard your secret conversations with siri. last week the house passed a vote by a 288-127 vote. it's packaged as a national security bill that allows private companies like google and facebook, to share electronic information like your e-mails and chats, with the government. it has also earned the ire of the aclu. it enjoys bipartisan support and this appoi disappointingly the backing of a surprising number of republicans, one of whom, mike rogers, sponsored the bill and

insisted it's not a surveillance project. to his credit, president obama vowed to veto it. the irony isn't lost on me that i find myself before you today agreeing with president obama and the aclu. the question isn't why am i? it's why aren't more lawmakers and political activists? where are the liberals who railed against the patriot act and expanding federal powers in respond to 9/11? where are the conservatives who champion privacy, civil liberties and limited government? as a national security hawk, i can surely acknowledge cyber security is an important issue and last week made it clear that terrorism still remains a living, breathing problem for america and the west. but the security, that security, is increasingly coming at the expense of liberty and we should all be a little more skeptical when our beloved free society is at stake. so shame on democrats and republicans for abandoning their principles. let's hope this dies on the senate floor, but in the meantime, no more